SCOTUS to decide GPS warrant case.

I wouldn't be shocked at all. Our Game Wardens do it all the time. If you shoot one of their mechanical deer, that they purposefully set out to tempt you, one of the many charges is damaging government property.

Do they do that in case the poaching charge doesn't stick?

I'd be more outraged if they stick you with a poaching charge for shooting one of their fakes. In which case, you wouldn't have actually shot an animal and they shouldn't get away with calling it poaching.

It is poaching. You shot an animial on protected land. You just didn't know it wasn't a real animal. The intent is the same.

IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!!1!!

See, that I don't agree with. If it isn't a real animal, you didn't shoot an animal on protected land. You shot a mannequin, or a robot, or whatever the things are.

You see, it's still against the law to attempt a crime.

Attempted murder, etc.

I can see that. Except crimes against persons and crimes against property tend to be different in that regard, don't they? I could be wrong there, but it seems to me I've never heard of "attempted vandalism" or anything similar. Not saying it doesn't exist, I've just never heard about a single case of "attempted" property crime. Charging someone for shooting a fake animal with "damage to property" should automatically bar any charge of poaching, because the court is on one hand saying that the target was not an animal and at the same time saying it was. One charge or the other, not both.

But you didn't know it wasn't real.

What's to stop someone from shooting a deer on protected land and saying "I thought it was a robot!"

Presumably the sentences would be set equally.

Maybe... oh, I dunno, this is just a thought... not making a practice of putting fucking robot deer on protected land. Maybe people shooting the robots don't really have any intention of shooting deer at all. Maybe they just don't like robots.